Talk:Horbat 'Uza

Sources

@Mccapra: hi. Question. This is a stub masquerading as more. On the other hand, it's an article about a minor archaeological site that was "lucky" to be partially destroyed by infrastructure, which meant salvage digs went into overdrive and discovered a lot. They were published by the TEAM of professionals counting a good half a dozen archaeologists who worked on the site, who are not bound by a constraint to "fall into line" (no omerta, no "you must agree to what the dig director says" rule, and we know of other IAA digs where team members have expressed their diverging views), in a proper, timely and professional monograph, and additional articles. What else can one want? That tag should have a meaning. It's not a "conflict" article, there was no Arab village there since the end of the 3rd Crusade (!), so what is the tag all about? I struggle to understand. Maybe you wish for details about land ownership (Arab, Jewish) and developments since the advent of Zionism? It's an insignificant piece of land with the longest side counting 400 metres, so good luck with that. Especially with finding a RS dealing with details significant enough as to be published. If that tag becomes a reflex, it loses its significance. A monograph with many authors is not really "one source", and minor topics don't get more than one academic source. Or is it a bot you've created, and that's that? A formal matter that takes place - just a few hours after the article was created?!! Quite a massive banner for that. Please help me understand, but with logical arguments and w/o using WP Newspeak (abbreviations and insider lingo). Thanks, Arminden (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Arminden thanks for your note. The tag on the article is to do with establishing whether an archaeological site meets the Wikipedia requirements for notability. There are some sites like Sutton Hoo or Çatalhöyük that have been written about extensively by multiple authors, so they’re clearly notable. At the other end of the spectrum there are sites which are written about only once or twice by their main investigators. An investigator telling you why their own finds are important in their own view isn’t a strong basis for establishing notability for Wikipedia purposes. If there are other sources that talk about the archaeology of the site in reasonable depth that will demonstrate that it is notable. Ideally these would be scholarly papers by authors other than the investigators, or reviews of their papers, or tv, newspaper or magazine items discussing the site. If any such sources can be added I will review them and can mark the article as patrolled, which will release it for search engine indexing. If there are no additional sources then it may be that the article does not meet the notability threshold. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mccapra: I got it, thanks. Arminden (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mccapra: Hi. Is it satisfactory by now? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Fabulous! Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Map

@Zero0000: hi. I don't know if you're interested or have the time, but I don't know much about maps and you do all there is to know. This site has the grid coordinates: map ref. NIG 21441/75762; OIG 16441/25762 (from the IAA, see at "Further reading"). That's actually for one salvage dig area, but the entire site is only 400x200 m. How can this be translated into a Wiki pushpin map? Re a related topic, somebody has mentioned maps with clickable items (Template:Location_map+), which is a novelty to me here on Wiki. Did you know about the template? BibleWalks has been using such a function for a long time, and I found it extremely useful. It can be used for instance where archaeological sites and current or former settlements are close to each other, but not identical. Or for specific monuments within a settlement. Take care, Arminden (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: I don't know anything about pushpin maps. Perhaps Onceinawhile can help. Meanwhile, probably this site will be useful to you once you figure out the appalling website design. In this case, search in "free text" for "Horvat Uza". Zero^talk 02:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I converted the coords using [1]. Gives 32.913537°N 35.150565°E / 32.913537; 35.150565 (putting a zero at the end of both the numbers. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Onceinawhile, thank you. I didn't know that's among your skills, now I wrote it down, otherwise I'd forget. Racing on my way to become a cloud-dependent cyborg. Thanks Zero0000 for suggesting. I'll put it in the infobox right away. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

... but I see you've done it already. You've "put it on the map", at least posthumously (after it's half gone due to highway and railway tracks). Better late than never :) Arminden (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Another converter (from a maker of GIS programs) is here. Change the first coordinate system to Israel 2039 for NIS. Zero^talk 09:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: - wait, I don't get it. You're writing that the app gives

32.913537°N 35.150565°E / 32.913537; 35.150565 (which is spot on), but I tried to practice the conversion myself, and the app spit out
26.74847°N 33.21416°E / 26.74847; 33.21416 (which is near Hurghada). The Egyptians wouldn't think it's funny.
Since I don't know if ING has long before lat or the other way round, I've tried that too, but that obviously isn't on the grid. I give up. Arminden (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, try adding a zero on to the end of both the NIG numbers. So instead of 21441/75762 put 214410/757620. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I see, great, it works, thank you! I thought "putting a zero at the end" meant in the Wiki coord, as not to overburden with insignificant digits.

On a different note: can we please keep "the conflict" a bit out of pages where it doesn't really belong to? There's this manic rush to place Mandate-period maps on every Israel article. I wouldn't do the equivalent in, say, Ukraine or Germany, marking every destroyed shtetl by a map, or placing next to every German town the map of the nearest Nazi concentration camp. It's really over the top in my opinion. Deir Yassin is one thing, but the rest is like turning Wikipedia into a sideshow and sub-chapter of PalestineRemembered, Zochrot, and ElectronicIntifada. If native peoples had enough e-activists, they could do the same with the Americas, Australia, Africa, and every irredentist movement in Europe could start that too - Germany & France "fighting" over Alsacia, the Hungarians fighting the Slovaks, Serbs, Romanians and Ukranians, .......... It's madness. If Abu Mazen says "I'm from Safed, but now it's in Israel, chapter closed", we should be able to do the same. There's still enough fighting to be done for the Palestinians w/o becoming fixated on this side of the matter. It makes opening Wikipedia become a put-off for many. Arminden (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

But we do have that. See the articles within List of shtetls and List of villages and towns depopulated of Jews during the Holocaust. The difference is that most of those locations are still there, still active towns and villages, with the same names as they had before (sometimes with modernized spelling). If we have historical maps of those locations showing the historical Jewish areas that were depopulated or destroyed we absolutely should add them to the articles for each location. Why should the history of those people in their native towns and villages be forgotten forever, just because some of the current inhabitants prefer not to remember that awful part of history.

And if we can put historical maps into the articles for Chicago and Dublin, we should be able to put them in for locations in Israel too. Historical maps add information and clarity in a way that words themselves cannot.

If some people look at historical maps of Israel and think about politics, as you seem to do in your post, they are free to do so. But this is about history, even the parts between 100CE-1948CE that some Israelis prefer to "skip over". This place was known as el-‘Ayadiya for more than 1,000 years, so why not have an image that shows it. For that same millennium, the main town near the site was Al-Birwa, we should not be shy about that.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure that you have the proper judgement and honesty to know the answer to this rhetorical question. But since you and so many others are not willing to take a step back and allow their own judgement to keep them from persevering with activistic methods where they don't belong, using sophisms and other logical fallacies, that's why I won't come back to this here, nor am I interested in going back to the "List of Palestinians" talk-page, nor to any such forum that ran off the tracks. There is a level of functional literacy which I'm less and less willing to forfeit. A friend laughed once many years ago when I complained about such a distortion of words and logic and told me about a poster put up by animal welfare activists: "They say experiments made on animals are made for the progress of health sciences. Did you ever see an animal coming out of an experiment healthier than when it went in?". You may win something in the short run with sophisms, but you lose your credibility and certain people's respect in the long run. Bye, Arminden (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, I am sorry to see this reaction, in particular the use of the word sophisms. I will not respond in kind. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, you're right, and I'll follow your example and try very hard to stay away from WP altogether. I'm getting to places where I really don't want to go. There are all kinds of pain thresholds, and I've well and truly reached mine. I am very sorry that it happened to be you whom I've blown my top with. That map and its caption happened to be the straw and I'm not the right camel for it anymore. Enjoy the ride, I'll try to stay out. Arminden (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, I see three kinds of people who stick around in this topic area. People who respect knowledge and I disagree with their politics, people who respect knowledge and I agree with their politics, and people who don’t respect knowledge and try to push their agendas.

The category that I value the most is the first category, which you are firmly in. The world is overflowing with “safe spaces” and “echo chambers”, and auditoriums where we can talk loudly past those we disagree with, but there are very few places where we can engage deeply with those we disagree with.

I hope you can see a way to value our interactions as much as I do, and even conclude that the value of such interactions outweighs the cost of the inevitable frustration at disagreements that both of us will struggle to fully comprehend.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, you're a fine person, I'm sorry I've offended you. Think of this: call everybody in a group thieves from the moment you say hello, and then figure out why it's not the most practical way to have a conversation. And that's what you're doing with those maps and what comes with them. This does as much wrong and offense as do Jewish Israelis obliterating and ignoring Arab history and existence. It's not a good way of doing anything. I don't know where you're living, but in 90% of the Western world there's somebody who's been there before your community and can claim rights to your home town. Anglo-Saxons and Normans (and I'm being told that in England lots if not most families still know where their name comes from), French and Franks, and so on. Of my home country, the Hungarians claim rights over more than a third, Russians have long set their eyes on another quarter, and there are more waiting in line. If you push people's faces into "it" and "it" stinks, you won't reach much. Every T-shirt or jeans you wear can be suspected of child labour, every university you go to study at was financed at some point through exploitation or war, every museum you visit can be taken apart by somebody who claims rights over parts of the collection. Recreating a virtual Palestine online is as legitimate as any other virtual space, and PalestineRemembererd and Zochrot are a gain for everyone, but doing it on Wikipedia is not the right platform and defeats the purpose of WP. You also probably can imagine what effect the withdrawal of all oxygen from one's bubble can have. Those who are purposely trying to do that are defining themselves as enemies, not even as adversaries or partners in a discussion. And pushing twisted definitions to their limits is an old rhetorical trick, but not intellectually honest. Forcing a Frenchman to see himself as a Celtic Barbarian who only came to statehood through the efforts of a Germanic tribe and who should actually be ruled from London might be correct taken piece by piece, but seen as a whole is wrong, disingenuous and intellectually offensive. When it comes to Israel-Palestine, some are trying to play such games feeling more at ease, but it's first wrong (as much as anywhere), and second dangerous (more than elsewhere), as there are enough extremist players in the region who like nothing more than to use such twisted definitions to pursue physical destruction, or in the case of those on the receiving end, to prove that all the world is dead-bent on destroying them and that all means are justified in combating that. Words and pictures have power. Those who use them know that, and then turning around and saying "but its just a line, or a picture, on WP" is disingenuous. If the goal is maximalist, you only achieve hate and stonewalling. And neither truth, nor progress tends to gain ground through maximalist claims. So yes, there are things I can agree to disagree on, and there are things that offend me intellectually more than in any other way and make me want to hurt back and run. Arminden (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, thank you for writing your thoughts out so clearly. I have read your message, and the one on your talk page, many times in an attempt to understand as much as I can. I am certain that we can progress and learn from each other here, and get closer to seeing eye-to-eye.

I would like to share some broader thoughts, but I have concluded that we need to try to break down one barrier first. It is a request to trust me, to truly assume good faith, not in a wiki-rules sense but in a simple human relationship sense.

It would mean reassessing the following comments:

• "…call everybody in a group thieves…"
• "…If the goal is maximalist…"
• "…delegitimising "the other""
• "…calling everybody a thief and erasing their pride in anything they've achieved…"

I can't claim to understand what historical experiences you have had which drove you to these extreme conclusions. So I can’t prove to you that you have called this wrong, you would need to consciously choose to reach such a conclusion.

The only thing I can do is try my best to explain. If you choose to deride this as sophistry, then we have no hope and should move on.

Those bullets above do not represent me and my mentality at all. Not one tiny amount. This is not a competition or a game. It is genuinely about sharing human knowledge. My overriding philosophical driver is that I consider ethnic-nationalism to be the greatest disease of modern times. I consider that real human knowledge about history can only be achieved if we are not frightened of sacred cows. We must accept that no group has a “right” to any particular history – the idea that Aristotle belongs to modern Greeks, or Rameses belongs to modern Egyptians is unhealthy. And we must accept that there is far more that we don’t know than what we do know – which language is really closer to the original, which people has a higher amount of “original” DNA, which religion is truly closer to the one that Moses brought down from the mountain. Once we discard these sacred cows, we can then learn to share. We can share the identities of the ancient historical figures, we can share the identities of the historical places, and we can share the whole history of the place – good and bad – as one long accident that we have all been part of.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

My attitude to all of this is that Wikipedia should be written for people who thirst for knowledge, not for people who prefer ignorance. I know as a fact that there are many Israelis who are unsatisfied with "the Jews were here, then the country was neglected for 1500 years, then the Jews were here". Specifically, there are many who are genuinely interested in knowing what used to be in the place where they live. Those who want to know the facts should be able to come here and find them presented in a neutral fashion with pointers to where they can find out more if they wish. Our task is to ensure the accuracy and neutrality, not to hide things that some people might not like to know. This is how I believe we should present the history of all locations on Earth and I don't see a reason for treating Israel as a special case. Note that the articles on Arab villages always mention ancient Jewish settlements on the site even in cases where it is more conjecture than established fact. Zero^talk 01:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile and Zero0000: hi folks, we've been working together for a while and cooperating quite nicely, and thanks again for your repeated help. For exactly that reason I supposed the basics were clear: all the three of us prefer knowledge over ignorance. As everywhere, there can be a gap between intentions and result. And as everywhere where people are the target, the impression, objective or even subjective, always plays a big part. If the first thing you see in an article about X is "X took the place of the depopulated Arab Palestinian village of Y" and there's a map of Y rather than X at the top, it's like branding a convict on his forehead. But if you include all that information in the history section in the right context, it's perfect in every respect, information-wise and regarding the impression created. The Jewish settlements in the occupied territories get that standard sentece copied from the BBC in the lead, and that's fine with me and with most everybody; but that's about the occupied territories. Israel is a UN-recognised state, in the borders of 1949. This should be the formal starting point. The rest is, any way you look at it, activism, which is bound to make some people happy and to repel others as out of place. The Israeli religious nationalists would like to erase the distinction between Hebrew Bible and both history and international law, Islamists would similarly brush aside any arguments with the dar al Islam axiom, Israeli secular nationalists would twist it in a similar way to the religious ones, but without the "divinely chosen people" bit, and so on. Fact is, one can insist the biblical episode belongs at the top of the lead, at least as being the oldest; another would push the Muslim conquest and Saladin's or Baybars' reconquista; a third the history of the Zionist pioneers "reclaimimg of the land" from deserts and swamps to blooming fields. Or, one can push into the lead the story of the last Arab village standing there or nearby before 1948. Depending on the context, any of those can be considered. Tel Gezer is mainly interesting for one thing, Masada for another, Deir Yassin for another, and Haifa for another than Ofakim. But as a rule, if it's not a conflict item par excellence, the controversial aspects shouldn't take front stage. As they've been doing lately. There's a place for everything, and it's mostly not at the top and with the most in-your-face & massive presentation. I know how this can go when (!) good faith is at play: you're happy you found a treasure trove of data and spill it into every article where it fits in. I'm doing it too with archaeology. But the effect might be that it tilts the impression created by an entire range of articles, and in a conflict-ridden field like I/P, it means taking sides and pushing a POV, be it one's own or not. People get either angry, or frustrated (if users, they distrust WP; if editors, they stop editing a topic or altogether), and that is BAD in every way for the project. And for real people. This is not about theoretical discussions about the X-teenth Dinasty of Upper Egypt, but about people living today and their real or perceived home. We have a million rules for articles about living people. Here it's the same, but with less consideration and rules. One could start taking every Canadian city and making half of the lead about the native tribes dislodged and add each time the number of native children killed in "residential schools" right after the first sentence in the intro. I don't think anyone would find that fair or permissible. Not even Soweto gets this type of treatment, for fuck's sake. So that's what blew my top off. And those who do it on purpose, as a life-long crusade, know well that it's both true and fully intentional. Good for them, they have a purpose in life, but Wikipedia is not made to offer them a platform. Arminden (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Crusader stuff

I am trying to sort out the Crusader sources here.

Pringle, 1991, p. 24 states, under AYADIYA, Khirbat al- 1648.2576:

• Cr. la Hadia; Med. Ar. al-Ghayadah; Hebr. H. Uza (=listing names)
• "Foundations of rectangular courtyard building excavated just S of main road in 1991. In February 1254, some of the village land of la Hadia was being held by Roland Antelmus (RRH, p. 320 no. 1212)."

Information: N. Getzov and K Frankel.

• Barag 1979: 204 (no. 16); Ben-Tor 1966; Beyer 1945: 208-10; Frankel 1988: 261, 271-2; Israel 1964: 1372; Palestine 1929; 1948: 20; Pringle 1981b: 53; 1994a:49· (=Sources)

..but Khamisy has al-Ayyadiyya (1645.2576) as his no 23 in the listing of the hudna of 1283 (see User:Huldra/Khamisy1283)

..So what was it called in the Crusader era? al-Ayyadiyya, or la Hadia? Or both? Huldra (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Khamisy, Rabei G. (2014). "The Treaty of 1283 between Sultan Qalāwūn and the Frankish Authorities of Acre: A New Topographical Discussion". Israel Exploration Journal. 64, 1: 72–102.
• Pringle, Denys (1997). Secular buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: an archaeological Gazetter. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521 46010 7.
• Röhricht, R. (1893). (RRH) Regesta regni Hierosolymitani (MXCVII-MCCXCI) (in Latin). Berlin: Libraria Academica Wageriana.

Hi @Huldra: I have just added in the original source from Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad who called it العياضية‎. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That is from Saladin-time, right? The 1283 is a bit later; I think Khamisy's article is based on a list by Al-Qalqashandi (as was Barag1283) . And I see now that Khamisy writes (on p.93) that the Mamluk called it al-'Ayyadiyya (+ the same Arab name as you wrote), while the La Hadia-name is one of the Frankish names. He also writes under recent names: "al-'Ayyadiyya", so I don't know where the "Horbat 'Uza" name came from? Huldra (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes that's right, c.1190. Hadia and Ayyadiyya are the same name, just pronounced differently. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Grootkerk, Salomon E. (2000). Ancient Sites in Galilee: A Toponymic Gazetteer. BRILL. p. 160. ISBN 90-04-11535-8.:

• Guerin called it A'iadieh
• Zimmermann called it Ajadijjeh
• The Ottomans called it Ayaduja

The first mention I can see of the new Israeli name is: Amnon Ben-Tor (1966), “Excavations at Ḥorvat ʿUṣa / החפירות בחורבת עוצה” 'Atiqot: Hebrew Series עתיקות: סידרה עברית, ג', pp. 1–24

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be on an official list of name changes in the 1957 Gazette. A Hebrew map published in that year calls it Horbat al-Ayadiya. Zero^talk 11:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The 1966 Hebrew publication above gave its alternative name חירבת אל עיאדייה.

But with my very limited reading ability I can’t see where it explains the change of the name to Uza.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I find this very interesting. I have sort of (without thinking) assumed that all of the names "Arab something" denoted Ottoman bedouin tribes, that is obviously wrong, as it was mentioned already in the Ayyubid era, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew & Arabic names

Onceinawhile, hi. I'm using Stephen Morse's transliteration tool for Hebrew & Arabic alphabets, I can only recommend it. It seems that what you've added is just the Hebrew transliteration of the Arabic name, "Khirbet el-‘Ayadiya". I don't think that transliterations which are not into English are useful. For Israelis it's a gain to see the Arabic name in Hebrew transliteration, but here, on enWiki? Take care, Arminden (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Arminden, I was just using the alternate name from the 1966 publication. Separately I was wondering why the English version of the Hebrew name is not 'Utsa, which would be more correct, no? Finally, do you have any understanding of what 'Utsa/'Uva means and why the name was given to the place? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

See: “חורבת עוצה” Hadashot Arkheologiyot / חדשות ארכיאולוגיות, ז', 1963, pp. 5–8 Onceinawhile (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And: Rozenfeld, Ben Tsiyon (2010). Torah Centers and Rabbinic Activity in Palestine, 70-400 CE: History and Geographic Distribution. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-17838-4.; it may have been named after the Talmudic Uza. I wonder if there is any evidence for the proposed connection. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Problem(s) with the transliterated Arabic names. One doesn't look very accurate.

• The the Arabic name is Khirbet el-‘Ayadiya (Arabic: العياضية‎,[3] Arabic: العيادية‎,[4] Arabic: القياضية‎[4]) "The ruin of the 'Aiyadiyeh Arabs",[4] "the ‘Ayadiya ruins".

The first two are apparently just different spellings. The third (Palmer) you shouldn't have used, in my opinion. It is about a different site, "Bir 'Aiyadiyeh" in square Lg. The tell is in Lf, so nearby, but not the same. Extrapolating is not good (maybe the WP guidelines can help, but I just know it doesn't work well and you can land in wrong places). Then, such an old source written by a non-native speaker, I wouldn't put so much emphasis on it. Third, using the template repeatedly adds nothing, but leads to the language appearing three times. Fourth, from what I understood, many Bedouin tribes and their territory are called "Arab el-XYZ". So Palmer got it too, and he spells out the name as "the ruin of the 'Aiyadiyeh Arabs", but that's a poor translation: a) tribe is closer, b) no article there (no el-Khirbat...), so no 'the'. Last and most important: Palmer had apparently learned in the field that 'Aiyadiyeh is the name of a Bedouin clan and that they're also called Keyudiyeh (القياضية). That's a different name altogether, the K changes the root, it's more than just a slight difference in pronunciation. He didn't apparently hear the name of the Bir (well) with a K, and he never writes that "our" tell was ever called with a K; just that the tribe is also called K... So a double stretch, as from all we know, the tell wasn't called after them. It's plain wrong to use it here. Also, see the name used by the Ayyubids: no K in the 12th century. What a Bedouin tribe called itself (MAYBE, if Palmer got it right) in the 1860s, might have nothing to do with a long-standing name for the tell. The tribe might have taken the local name, or adapted its own (with a K) to an older local one. All those funny vowels mean almost nothing, only the consonants matter (and the vowels are just attempts at catching in "English" sounds that are simple in Arabic, but don't even exist in European languages). It's not about uprooting anyone, it's about reading the history of the sedentary and nomadic Arabs throughout the region. Droughts, climate change, war, administrative threats (taxation, army drafts) meant that people were by far more mobile than one might think. Identities were too, with tribal confederations taking one common name, convenient legends about descendance being adopted (in Abu Ghosh they have two, Abu Ghosh No. 1 was either Chechen or Hijazi; different continent!), etc. It has been the same with the Neolithic population, the Chalcolithic one, the Canaanites, Israelites and later Jews, Philistines, Samaritans, incoming Greeks, Byzantine Christians, - and Arabs, Turks and Kurds. Anyway, the three versions can't stand as they are, I hope you see my point. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, got a few things wrong. Fixing now. Arminden (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey of Western Palestine 1880.05

Re the confusion about which SWP map, note that this is labelled both “Sheet III” (middle) and “Sheet V” (top right). Onceinawhile (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the problem? On each SWP map they label the adjacent maps, too. So SWP map 5 has "Sheet III" on the top; "Sheet VI" on the right hand side, and "Sheet VIII" at the bottom. Huldra (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. The SWP clearly reads on p. 308, last entry at the bottom: "Kh. 'Aiyadiyeh (Lf)", Lf being the square on the map. But it's not there! It's at Lg, next to the Bir, and both are on another sheet altogether, V instead of III. Can't explain, both book and map are from 1881, so hardly from reworked, different editions. Whatever. That takes out the "Bir different from Khirba" argument. The rest, I guess, still stands, maybe even more so, considering the apparent inaccuracy. Anyway, formally, if we write "the Arabic name is 'A...", we cannot dump a "K..." transliteration next to it. Arminden (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have the maps on my PC. On III it's not there, maybe it should be there rather than at Lg, judging by Judeideh's position, but it's not there. Arminden (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation of ق

See here - the Arabic qaf is a glottal stop in the Levant. So pronounced transliterated into English the same as ayn. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Why 'Atiqot transliterated it as 'Uṣa, I have no clue. ṣ apparently stands for tsade, and check the Wiki article about the variation in pronunciation. I see no phonetic connection between 'Uza and ‘Ayadiya, and there was no immediate need for the Names Committee to bother, since there's nothing there beyond ruins and a well. Or maybe because of the well? Who knows, I certainly don't. What Talmudic Uza are you thinking of? I know close to nothing about the Talmud, but there was an Usha where the post-70 Sanhedrin was located for a while, and it's not so far away. Uzza is an Arabian deity, Petra is full of Uzzas, and I see the Talmud has a fallen angel by the name, but I don't know if the double-z can ever be a transliteration for tsade. I can sleep very well w/o knowing that. Arminden (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Qaf pronounced the same as ayn? I don't know much about it, but I'd be very careful with guessing, A close to B and C close to B doesn't mean A the same as C. You know how it is, native speakers a) can hear the difference when we can't, and b) they usually associate with a root, and have their criteria to know which, even if pronunciation evolved away from it. Unless there is a RS, it's a great thought, but no proof for anything. Got burned too often with "outsider's logic". Arminden (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Besides, Palmer transliterates it on p. 106 plainly as Keiyudiyeh, and on 110 he leaves us with the Arabic. He was probably working from notes taken years previously by others, Conder & Kitchener, amazing how much those SWP people did get right in the final publications. Arminden (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, yes, qaf is pronounced as a glottal stop. Ask Palestinians in Jerusalem where they live and they will tell you al-‘uds. But noone will write it like that, hence Kuds or Quds. I think that is what you are seeing here with Keiyudiyeh. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Huldra, wow, you taught me something! Great. It might well explain Palmer's (or Conder's) reasons, but in terms of editing, it still is OR. So leave the three options as they are, only few can read the Arabic, and they might know it right away. Excellent, sorted! Thanks, Arminden (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Huldra, sorry, I didn't notice your post in the flurry of messages with Once. The thing is, it confused me, and I guess it would confuse any (improbable) user who might look it all up. The book says square Fe => sheet III, but on sheet III you don't find it. It's at Fg, where one would't look for it going by the book (p. 308). You're an experienced editor who's working more or less daily with the SWP. I don't expect any user to do that, and one expects any link to take you straight to the target. That's what I meant and what I tried. 19th- and 20th-century thinking was different, I'm also sooo 20th myself :) Arminden (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Arminden Huh? I don't see that it says Map 3 anywhere? The index (for Palmer) says "Kh. el ’Aiyâdîyeh, the ruin of the ’Aiyâdîyeh Arabs (Sh. 5, Lg), 111." Huldra (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Huldra, you've linked to SWP Memoirs p. 308, and thanks for that. There it says Fe. I looked up the maps and Fe is on III. And no Kh. 'A. there! Just the village to the north (Judeideh?), seemingly far enough as to accommodate the site on the Fe square. So I got deeply confused, thought they discussed it, but didn't put it on the map. That's all. Only after that did I find it on V, actually after seeing Once's mention of Bir 'A. at Fg. I'm now writing on my phone, from memory, hope I get the details right. Arminden (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Arminden Huh? SWP, 1881, p 308 says Lf. But more important: on the top of every other page it says "Sheet V". Huldra (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Huldra What other page?! The item in the book has a linked page, I followed it to p. 308, and there it said "Kh. 'Aiyadiyeh (Lf)". Basta. As I said, a link is a link, shouldn't require a Sherlock Holmes.

Now I see what you mean. Two books. They're twice "hidden", or separated. There are two SWP titles, but on 2 different lists - the one referenced in the article is under References: Bibliography. The second, together with the map, is not referenced, so it's under Further reading. And since the books are listed under "author (year)" and not under their title, publisher, or series, the fact that they're both part of the SWP series is again "hidden". The map is with the Conder & Kitchener book, the one with the wrong square info (Lf). There you go. I've placed now cross-references next to both and added some more details, and if there's a way to directly reference the Conder & Kitchener book inline, we can move that one up onto the References: Bibliography list. Then we can maybe create a separate subset, SWP, with the two books plus the map, with their own heading. I'll take care of it now. Arminden (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

To editor Arminden: To editor Huldra: To editor Onceinawhile: (1) Where's the beer? (2) I can't tell from the above if you agreed where this place is on the SWP maps. Anywhere, here is the quickest way I know to locate a place if the coordinates are in the article. Click on the coordinates and on the next page select "Palestine Open Maps". In this case you will see this (might take a few seconds to load and sometimes you need to zoom in or out). The location is now in the middle of a 1930s/1940s map. (Actually the middle if the sidebar was hidden.) Select "Western Palestine 1:63,000" in the sidebar and, voila, there it is (again, zooming in or out might be necessary if the map doesn't appear). So it is Kh. 'Aiyadiyeh with a spring beside it and you can see it is near the top edge of a map that ends just south of Acre. Consulting the separate maps we can see it is Sheet V, Lg. Zero^talk 04:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This can also be done at amudanan.com but at least one of their SWP maps in the north is badly misaligned with the modern map. Zero^talk 04:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Zero, it's all been sorted out already (see article), but these are good tools for the future. Arminden (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

name of this article?

Seeing that this was Khirbet el-‘Ayadiya since (at least) the days of Saladin, and I have seen no good explanation for the present name; should't this article be moved to Khirbet el-‘Ayadiya? Most of the sources name it so, Huldra (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

High dependance on a single source

A current issue for article quality is that the article highly depends on a single source, Getzov et al. (2009b), Getzov: The History of Settlement ..., pp. 199-205. A great improvement will be to have multiple concurring sources for key points in the article Fileyfood500 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)